Intellectual property: get it right
Franchisors and franchisees also have to deal with what is so nicely called intangible products of the mind. In plain Dutch this includes brands, logos, trade names, color combinations and slogans. It would go too far at this point to provide a full explanation of all these matters about the way in which such matters should be registered and protected. However, it is very important that all parties involved in a franchise organization realize that they are working with such intellectual property rights, ranging from the name of the franchise organization to the house style of the stationery, shop fronts and color schemes of counters. It will often be the case that it is the franchisor who has designed things and has also protected or must protect them under trademark law. In general, it is part of good franchisorship to ensure that this is actually provided with adequate trademark protection, so that the individuality, originality and distinctiveness of the franchise organization is safeguarded in this way, in particular also for the benefit of the affiliated franchisees, who pay a fee to the franchisor, partly for this reason. In addition, it is equally important that the franchisor adequately safeguards his own rights in his relationship with the franchisees. In general, franchisees obtain a license to use the brands and the like of the franchisor through the franchise agreement. The rights and obligations in that context must be comprehensively and adequately laid down in the franchise agreement, with attention being paid to the situation at the end of the franchise agreement, by means of dissolution, cancellation or, for example, bankruptcy. In particular, in the latter circumstance, if nothing is provided for in the franchise agreement, the situation may arise in which the licenses issued to the franchisees remain with them, so that essentially nothing remains of the franchise organization for a trustee, either.
The above is by its nature a very limited representation of what is relevant with regard to intellectual property. The purport of this contribution is therefore in particular the message that franchise parties are dealing with intellectual property rights and that this must be adequately arranged, including in the franchise agreement.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.